It looks like Trump is setting the mood for the 1T.

[disasterzone]

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title. Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in. The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22. This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030. Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

The last 4T lasted 16 years and so could this one. This one might end early because Trump is a loose cannon willing to use nukes

[Kinser79]

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title. Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in. The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22. This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030. Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

Many that use 2008 as the start of the 4T clearly ignore the fact that Katrina clearly demonstrated that the status quo wasn't working, in fact couldn't work. As such I've always placed the start at 2005-2006 meaning the turning is now 10 years old, and should be headed towards its climax now. After 8 years in January 2025 I would imagine that Pence or perhaps a Trumpist GOP will be taking over and that will be the face of the 1T.

Of course I view the Trump revolution as analogous to the Glorious Revolution. The liberals on this board have already said he's likely James II but I highly doubt that.

[Galen]

(11-18-2016, 08:41 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title.  Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in.  The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22.  This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030.  Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

Many that use 2008 as the start of the 4T clearly ignore the fact that Katrina clearly demonstrated that the status quo wasn't working, in fact couldn't work.  As such I've always placed the start at 2005-2006 meaning the turning is now 10 years old, and should be headed towards its climax now.  After 8 years in January 2025 I would imagine that Pence or perhaps a Trumpist GOP will be taking over and that will be the face of the 1T.

Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment.   The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era.  Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century.  If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale.  Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.

At this point it is hard to define Trumpism or even if there will be such a thing.  Time will tell.  It always does in the end.

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2016, 08:33 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title. Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in. The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22. This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030. Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

The last 4T lasted 16 years and so could this one. This one might end early because Trump is a loose cannon willing to use nukes

According to the timeclock I use, the last 4T started a bit late, and ended early because Hitler shortened the war with his lousy strategy. However, given that contingency that you point out, it could end more quickly; in which case the "1T" will be one in which the living may very well envy the dead.

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2016, 08:23 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 01:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title.  Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in.  The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22.  This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030.  Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

It's way early.

Part of this meme is gloating by the Trumpistas. They think foolishly that DT is equivalent to FDR (a supposedly Right Wing version) and that the Regeneracy is upon us. Very foolish. It's like unbuckling and walking around the cabin after hitting some light chop only to get head slammed into the cabin ceiling when the real turbulence hits.

The Dems under Obama done goofed and failed to read the growing anti-globalization and anti-technocratic mood of the country, so now the electorate are giving the GOP a shot. Hopefully the Dems can get their shit together and craft a message that matches that mood rather than fighting a losing battle in defense of neoliberalism.

Calling the Democrats' campaign a defense of neo-liberalism is certainly a great exaggeration. Clinton called out Trump for his trickle-down schemes very clearly. But it's true the anti-free trade message by Trump resonated more powerfully and that needs to change. I'm not sure Trump's voters even realize the extent to which computer automation has cost them their jobs, and it's not clear that anyone can do anything about it.

[Odin]

(11-19-2016, 05:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 08:23 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 01:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title.  Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in.  The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22.  This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030.  Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

It's way early.

Part of this meme is gloating by the Trumpistas. They think foolishly that DT is equivalent to FDR (a supposedly Right Wing version) and that the Regeneracy is upon us. Very foolish. It's like unbuckling and walking around the cabin after hitting some light chop only to get head slammed into the cabin ceiling when the real turbulence hits.

The Dems under Obama done goofed and failed to read the growing anti-globalization and anti-technocratic mood of the country, so now the electorate are giving the GOP a shot. Hopefully the Dems can get their shit together and craft a message that matches that mood rather than fighting a losing battle in defense of neoliberalism.

Calling the Democrats' campaign a defense of neo-liberalism is certainly a great exaggeration. Clinton called out Trump for his trickle-down schemes very clearly. But it's true the anti-free trade message by Trump resonated more powerfully and that needs to change. I'm not sure Trump's voters even realize the extent to which computer automation has cost them their jobs, and it's not clear that anyone can do anything about it.

You failed to understand my post. In a democracy you are supposed to give the people what they want, but the establishment technocrats in the party (The folks moaning and groaning about "but why don't they understand that free trade is GOOD for them???" or "But we need the TPP for diplomatic reasons!") have come to see the views of ordinary people as a "problem" rather than the whole point of democracy.

I call those technocrats neoliberal because that is what they are, ideologically. They may be on the left-wing end of neoliberalism (neo-Keynesianism) but they are still part of the neoliberal "Washington Consensus".

[pbrower2a]

(11-18-2016, 08:41 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title.  Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in.  The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22.  This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030.  Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

Many that use 2008 as the start of the 4T clearly ignore the fact that Katrina clearly demonstrated that the status quo wasn't working, in fact couldn't work.  As such I've always placed the start at 2005-2006 meaning the turning is now 10 years old, and should be headed towards its climax now.  After 8 years in January 2025 I would imagine that Pence or perhaps a Trumpist GOP will be taking over and that will be the face of the 1T.

Of course I view the Trump revolution as analogous to the Glorious Revolution.  The liberals on this board have already said he's likely James II but I highly doubt that.

More like George III at best, Milosevic at worst.

[Eric the Green]

(11-19-2016, 09:38 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 05:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 08:23 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 01:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title.  Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in.  The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22.  This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030.  Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

It's way early.

Part of this meme is gloating by the Trumpistas. They think foolishly that DT is equivalent to FDR (a supposedly Right Wing version) and that the Regeneracy is upon us. Very foolish. It's like unbuckling and walking around the cabin after hitting some light chop only to get head slammed into the cabin ceiling when the real turbulence hits.

The Dems under Obama done goofed and failed to read the growing anti-globalization and anti-technocratic mood of the country, so now the electorate are giving the GOP a shot. Hopefully the Dems can get their shit together and craft a message that matches that mood rather than fighting a losing battle in defense of neoliberalism.

Calling the Democrats' campaign a defense of neo-liberalism is certainly a great exaggeration. Clinton called out Trump for his trickle-down schemes very clearly. But it's true the anti-free trade message by Trump resonated more powerfully and that needs to change. I'm not sure Trump's voters even realize the extent to which computer automation has cost them their jobs, and it's not clear that anyone can do anything about it.

You failed to understand my post. In a democracy you are supposed to give the people what they want, but the establishment technocrats in the party (The folks moaning and groaning about "but why don't they understand that free trade is GOOD for them???" or "But we need the TPP for diplomatic reasons!") have come to see the views of ordinary people as a "problem" rather than the whole point of democracy.

The "establishment technocrats" (why you call them technocrats is another issue) and corporate globalists disagree with the anti-globalist and anti-free traders. Some people on each side may run down the other side, but that's beside the point, or just provides more heat than light. Free trade is neo-liberal; tariffs are economic nationalist and pro-labor. Personally I agree with the economic nationalists in most cases, but not to the extreme that the anti-one-worlders do. It's just a policy issue that people care about. Democrats need to take note of the increasing anti-free trade sentiment that Trump has appealed to. No disagreement with you there.

Quote:I call those technocrats neoliberal because that is what they are, ideologically. They may be on the left-wing end of neoliberalism (neo-Keynesianism) but they are still part of the neoliberal "Washington Consensus".

Neo-liberalism is classical liberalism, trickle-down, free market economics, supply-side, or laissez faire. Keynesianism is on the opposite side of that, "ideologically." It is part of the solution, when needed; by no means the only one.

It will do us no good to confuse things, or pander to the people who mistakenly voted for Trump by claiming they represent ideas that must now be adhered to. They don't. No, the liberals can't give them what they want. They must give them what they need (hey, that's Trump's theme song! Maybe we can use it to in reverse). They want neo-liberalism, and liberals must offer them the real 20th century liberalism, and be able to persuade them to the extent that they can. It just so happens that Trump was a better persuader than Hillary. It's the horoscope scores, apparently. Or whatever you call the inherent personality of the candidates. That was the major factor.


What is 'Neoliberalism'
Liberalism, in economics, refers to a freeing of the economy by eliminating regulations and barriers that restrict what actors can do. Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic development.

Neoliberalism has been used by various scholars, critics and analysts, mainly referring to an upspring of 19th century ideas connected to economic liberalism that began in the 1970s and 1980s. These ideals advocate for extensive economic liberalization and policies that extend the rights and abilities of the private sector over the public sector, specifically the shutting down of state and government power over the economy. Neoliberalism supports fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, privatization and greatly reduced government spending.... This approach has most famously been connected to various economic policies introduced in the United Kingdom by Margaret Thatcher and in the United States by Ronald Reagan......

Read more: Neoliberalism Definition | Investopedia
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp


The "Trumpsters" combine extreme neo-liberal laissez faire with economic nationalism, with some contradictory Keynesianism thrown in. It's an unusual combination, but it will fail. Trump is a con-man. It is certainly "establishment," and the people in the rust belt who thought Trump was "anti-establishment" were fooled. Republican voters past and present often refuse to face up to the failure of neo-liberalism, which they embrace with a fundamentalist faith.

I disagree with throwing terms around and defining them any way you want to suit the styles and passions of the moment.

[Eric the Green]

Lucid Nation, November 17 ·
Unchecked capitalism, especially. And guess what The Donald is going to do...? Remove all checks...

H/T Save Main St

[Eric the Green]

[Warren Dew]

(11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 08:41 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-18-2016, 12:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't understand this thread title.  Most assume the 4T started in 2008, so we are 8 years in.  The nominal length for turnings is 22 years and the last one lasted 24, so lets use 22.  This forecasts the start of the 1T around 2030.  Isn't a little early to be talking about the 1T?

Many that use 2008 as the start of the 4T clearly ignore the fact that Katrina clearly demonstrated that the status quo wasn't working, in fact couldn't work.  As such I've always placed the start at 2005-2006 meaning the turning is now 10 years old, and should be headed towards its climax now.  After 8 years in January 2025 I would imagine that Pence or perhaps a Trumpist GOP will be taking over and that will be the face of the 1T.

Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment.   The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era.  Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century.  If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale.  Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.

At this point it is hard to define Trumpism or even if there will be such a thing.  Time will tell.  It always does in the end.

Isn't the nationalism just a consequence of the crisis era?

The idea that this will be an end to progressivism is a hopeful one, but it may be too early to tell what replaces it.  Who would have envisioned progressivism in 1865?

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-19-2016, 08:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Isn't the nationalism just a consequence of the crisis era?



Close, according to da book, it's more a manifestation of Nomad generations' rise to power. Due to Nomad gens' having lots of economic problems and attitude   most have little use for shit that happens elsewhere.  Example,  Rags doesn't give a rat's ass about Syria, Africa, Afghanistan, [except we should just bail out and save that money for more important stuff like green energy in the US, better infrastructure in the US, and shore up the safety net.  ] Less spending on the Empire and more on domestic needs is what is in order.

Quote:The idea that this will be an end to progressivism is a hopeful one, but it may be too early to tell what replaces it.  Who would have envisioned progressivism in 1865?

Progressivism per say has its points. Poverty and destitution are destabilizing.  Besides anyone is one car wreck away from full disability.    The part I don't like is this "We're One World After all."   It's nauseating to the max. And it brings out my inner Grouch.

[Marypoza]

(11-17-2016, 04:21 PM)taramarie Wrote: When I was a child I wished to go to America. Now I know life is far better in NZ for quality of life (the quality that I enjoy personally). The more I learn about America the more I wonder why I thought it was an ideal place to go live in.

-- you been watching too many movies & too much teevee

[Eric the Green]

(11-19-2016, 08:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)Galen Wrote: Murray Rothbard once pointed out that the Progressive Era, with its idea of a technocratic elite, had not ended in the eighties and I am inclined to agree with this assessment.   The last fourth turning spelled the end of classical liberalism and so it seems likely that this one spell the final end of the Progressive Era.  Judging from current trends it seems likely that the upcoming first turning will be defined by nationalism but on a much smaller scale than was known in the twentieth century.  If so then the nation-state as we know it is on the decline on an even longer time scale.  Probably about two centuries give or take a half-century.

At this point it is hard to define Trumpism or even if there will be such a thing.  Time will tell.  It always does in the end.

Isn't the nationalism just a consequence of the crisis era?

The idea that this will be an end to progressivism is a hopeful one, but it may be too early to tell what replaces it.  Who would have envisioned progressivism in 1865?

Progressivism just means we move forward and progress. Its content changes with the times. The only alternative to progress is regression.

[Eric the Green]

(11-19-2016, 09:41 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Close, according to da book, it's more a manifestation of Nomad generations' rise to power. Due to Nomad gens' having lots of economic problems and attitude   most have little use for shit that happens elsewhere.  Example,  Rags doesn't give a rat's ass about Syria, Africa, Afghanistan, [except we should just bail out and save that money for more important stuff like green energy in the US, better infrastructure in the US, and shore up the safety net.] Less spending on the Empire and more on domestic needs is what is in order.

Yes, now that Trumpzilla and his GOPPERs have taken over, it's clear that the main enemy or concern we have to deal with is here in the USA. All those domestic things you mention are needs that can truly be addressed only after these monsters have been returned to the zoo in the 2020s. But meanwhile, resistance, local action and organizing is the priority. I also find myself caring less about Syria, Afghanistan, Africa et al, now that not only our president doesn't care, but our own economy and ecology is in serious danger from our own government. I have to remind Mr. X that guarding against Russia is less important now that our own president is a Russian agent, and Russian-style oligarchy has itself been installed in the USA, under the control of its CEO Mr. Donald Trump and his family.

Quote:Progressivism per say has its points. Poverty and destitution are destabilizing.  Besides anyone is one car wreck away from full disability.    The part I don't like is this "We're One World After all."   It's nauseating to the max. And it brings out my inner Grouch.

It is a fact nevertheless. We may not have the ability to care about it anymore, when we have a monster in the White House, and monsters in state houses from the Atlantic to the Sierras, who want to dismantle this progressivism and its virtues you mention, and much more. And I understand a Gen Xer's feeling about taking care of ourselves first. And boomers in youth rejected the imperialist program in no uncertain terms. Still, nationalism and tribal or racial loyalty are old fashioned, borders are arbitrary lines on a map, and we are all still too connected to the world to deny that we are one common humanity on one Earth. I don't get the reluctance to admit this fact.

[Warren Dew]

(11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.

It could have been worse.  We could have elected Clinton.

[GenX420]

(11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.

I thought Clinton won the popular vote, he won the electoral.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2016, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-20-2016, 12:02 AM)taramarie Wrote: btw for the record I have not watched a movie in a very long time and i never watch tv. What now...
Seeing what people get up to over there...what they say and the pos they have elected president yeah I am disgusted.

It could have been worse.  We could have elected Clinton.

If you think the crowds of semi-literate people at Tea Party rallies unnerved us liberals, then wait until you see what our larger, more coherent rallies do to shatter your complacency.

On foreign policy alone, Hillary Clinton would be far safer. As a conservative, do you really wish to cast off the Reagan-Bush foreign policy that became the default for Barack Obama?

How do you know that Donald Trump will not offend mass interests at least as pervasively as any prior President?

Were I a woman I might create this sign: "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY P***Y AND YOUR LAWS OFF MY UTERUS!"

(Women are welcome to this slogan even if the slogan is my creation).

[Galen]

(11-20-2016, 01:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes she did which means she should have won. I do not understand the way the election process works over there. Sounds unusual. If she was more popular she should have won IMO.

No, that is wrong because you don't understand that the US is a federal system.  I suggest that you listen to Tom Woods as usual he is a good source on historical matters.  Consider this, if it was a simple popular vote then four or maybe five major urban centers would decide who the president would be.  No one else would matter.

[pbrower2a]

If there is any question that the impending Trump Administration (regime? dictatorship?) isn't setting new standards for loyalty based upon partisan loyalty above all else, then read this:

Quote:A federal judge presiding over a naturalization ceremony in San Antonio, Texas, on Friday told new U.S. citizens if they didn’t like President-elect Donald Trump, they could leave the United States.

“I can assure you that whether you voted for him or you did not vote for him, if you are a citizen of the United States, he is your president,” Judge John Primomo said, according to KENS 5. “He will be your president and if you do not like that, you need to go to another country.”

From the start of his presidential campaign, Trump made attacking immigrants a central component of his candidacy. He called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and pledged to ban all Muslim immigrants from entering the U.S. On Friday, he announced he would nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a staunch anti-immigration hardliner, as his attorney general.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dona...512f833cf8